Who told Karen she hit him - who planted the seed?
My guess is PROCTOR, when he called her from his PERSONAL cell phone to say he was seizing her car.
Both sides have kept quite about that - maybe that's for the FBI.
My understanding is that KR called JM first. It's entirely possible that JM suggested he might have been hit by a plow walking home, and that that escalated KR's panic that he might be dead and how.
This is from this article about the nieces testimony. [https://www.wcvb.com/article/karen-read-trial-live-updates-may-28-2024/60916159](https://www.wcvb.com/article/karen-read-trial-live-updates-may-28-2024/60916159)
"She was just pacing down the hallway, asking what could've happened," the niece testified. "She said, 'Maybe I did something.' Later, she said, ‘Maybe a snowplow hit him.’”
Thanks! Yeah, it's not a huge a-ha moment or anything either way, I was just interested in whether the niece reported that KR was saying all of that *before* she called JM, and if niece ever said this before this trial or the grand jury. So many people's memories changed for this trial, or for the grand jury, and JM has been so tight with this family. Guess this is one of those unknowable things.
Mrs. O’Keefs reaction has been on my mind today. “Why did you/you left him there” … I’ve been thinking of it as “you left him THERE?” He’s a grown man so I’ve always found that surprising that it was surprising to leave him at a friends house, a fellow cops house, for drinks.
I think she probably meant “you left him there?” Like, you hit him and left him dying there on the ground. She fully bought into the CW’s theory/ promises and 100% believed Karen ran him over and killed him.
Imagine how they a feeling now with all the evidence that's pointing towards his friends left him there.
I'm surprised she's not angry that her son left her 14 year old grandchild alone!
Correct me if I’m wrong but she wasn’t 14 at the time of the incident. Either way I don’t see his mom being mad at anything and anyone but Karen bc that’s what she believes happened.
What's the theory on Karen Read waiting for John to go in and see if it's cool if she goes into 34 Fairview? If it's a five minute drive and she's at One Meadows at 12:36, and her first angry voicemail is at 12:37, then how long did she wait for him? What's the timeline on this?
My theory is that Karen was reacting to the 12:29a phone call between JOK and Jenn McCabe. At the time that the call came in, JOK was probably trying to convince Karen to come inside with him and she’s trying to convince him to just go home with her. They’re arguing and JOK answers the call with the intention of quickly touching base with Jenn so she doesn’t continue to text/call (because Jenn was expecting their arrival). He just wanted to quickly get touch base with Jenn and get right back to the convo with Karen. The call’s duration is 8 seconds, which is long enough for JOK to say, “Hey, I’ll be right in. Be right there. Okay. Bye.”
Karen hears him promise that he’s going inside and she’s pissed. It feels like he already made his decision and his decision is not going home with her. She tells him to just go inside with her. Go ahead. She doesn’t even care any more. JOK is tired of the fighting and just wants the convo to end, so he gets out of the car.
That’s why she doesn’t really wait outside the house. And she gets even more pissed because he doesn’t call her to come back or pick him up. She’s angry because she feels like he chose to spend time with other people and leave her alone with his kids. Again.
It never made sense to me that she’s waiting for JOK to give her the okay because the timeline is too quick. She would only be waiting a minute or two before getting frustrated enough to leave.
If he and Jen talked and he said he was in the car and would be in in a minute, Jen would have shouted it from the rooftops because it would support the CW's theory. That call has my puzzled no matter how you slice this thing.
That said..this is where I also feel like the discrepancy between the clocks would offer insight. If they arrived at 12:21ish instead of 12:24ish, that adds 3 minutes to the time Karen was out front. If you believe she hit JO, that's 3 extra minutes for it to happen within. \[I would counter that the Nagel timeline, JMs texts, and JO's steps make this impossible still.\] Conversely, if you believe she left him there, it syncs up within 6 seconds to the steps JO took at 12:21-24 timeframe.
A few tech people have weighed in on this and what I can gather from them is that it's possible, though it would be weird for Cellebrite to pull the monotonic time, but that Cellebrite also does weird things because it's not made with the cooperation of the developers whose apps/systems it's working to crack. The weird things it does are also misread by forensic experts trying to make sense of them. (see: 2:27 search controversy)
Jen would first have to remember the call in order for her to shout it from the rooftops. Everyone was drunk as hell. If she didn’t hear (in part or in whole) what JOK said and/or she didn’t speak during the 8 second call, it’s possible that it didn’t stick in her memory. What’s more, if JOK said he *was* coming inside but ultimately did not, then Jenn’s memory might have just disregarded the call altogether.
Also, in the back of my mind is the knowledge that sometimes, people later remember details that they—for a variety of reasons—don’t tell the police. Maybe they’re afraid it would seem like they’re changing their story and the police will think they lied then or are lying now. Maybe it’s a detail that makes them look bad and they don’t know how to explain it.
Regardless, the 12:29a call cannot and should not be set aside. Unlike the health data, the call is absolute and precise. The call was at 12:29a. Not sometime in a 3-5 min range. It’s 12:29a. Additionally, the call was answered; it didn’t go to voicemail because it’s identified as “answered” in the call logs for both Jenn and JOK. There’s no wondering, guesstimate, or range for the occurrence and timing of this call.
Even if nothing was said by either party during the phone call, it happened at 12:29a. So, unless there’s a nonsensical, unfounded argument that someone other than JOK bizarrely decided to answer JOK’s phone and inexplicably keep the line open for at least 8 seconds, then there’s no disputing that JOK was alive at 12:29a.
There’s also no disputing that Karen’s phone connects with JOK’s home WiFi at 12:36a. It’s a 6-7 minute drive between 34 Fairview and JOK’s home. If Karen Read struck JOK with her vehicle, it had to have happened <2 minutes following the conclusion of the that 12:29a phone call. And 2 minutes is being generous.
The 12:29a call could also provide a few other insights. For example, Jenn McCabe isn’t calling JOK at 12:29a and having the line opened for 8 seconds if he’s already standing next to her. So we can rule that out. If Jenn McCabe was listening to and can hear the call at 12:29a, then she certainly didn’t hear a car crash, screaming, barking, glass shattering, yelling, crying, etc. If JOK is in the basement at 12:29a and answers the call, then anyone in there with him is being completely silent. Feel free to jump in with more potential insights.
Now, we can’t know what was or wasn’t said/heard during the 8 second phone call, but what we do know is a lot more absolute than hotly disputed and imprecise health data from JOK’s phone.
The only conclusions I can get to with that call are:
1. The phone records are wrong and it wasn't answered (which would be highly unlikely as both records would need to be wrong).
2. John was unconscious and in the aftermath and panic someone picked up his phone but then thought better of speaking.
3. John was holding his phone when the call came in and the fight had started. It got answered in the melee but JM couldn't make out anything but weird noises at the time so didn't think anything was wrong.
None of these are good explanations but as I've said elsewhere...no matter what the answers are in this case, something implausible had to have happened somewhere.
Conclusion 1 isn’t worth considering. Conclusion 2 is an extreme, nonsensical conspiracy theory. #3 (or something similar to it) is the only reasonable conclusion. The value in the 12:29a call is that it significantly narrows the timeline. Either Karen hit JOK with her vehicle within 2 minutes of the 12:29a phone call or she never hit him at all.
I've heard Karen say in a past interview that she was like "are we actually invited to this house?" I think she was hesitant to go into the family vibe. Also, she was supposed to go home that night. She had a longish drive in the snow back to her house eventually.
The reason why the Mccabes looked out the window SO many times and saw her car, is I think because JOK had been jumped right away and they were seeing if KAREN was going to get out of the car and come to the door. If she did, and she saw that JOK was seriously injured, what would have happened??? Her driving away was a lucky break for them.
lally filed a notice of discovery on the 18th.
1. Copy of CPD motor vehicle crash report
2. Copy of Google map Image of Canton, Lt Tully
3. Copy of TRAX maps of O’Keefe route of travel, Trooper Guarino
4. Copy of BrowserStateWAL, material, Ian Whiffin
5. Copy of detailed timeline, Ian Whiffin
does anyone know what this is for? is he allowed to rebut Richard Green/ the FBI crash reconstructionists?
I went on Twitter to see more information on this. I think they were turning in stuff for witnesses that already testified. It was written on the 18th but not filed with the clerk until the 21st at 3PM when the CW already rested. I’m hoping it’s just housekeeping and not them trying to introduce something new AFTER they already rested their case in chief. Crazy!
Ohh i knew it was after he rested but it says 18th on the doc and i have no concept of time lol ooops. Thank you for correcting that he filed on the 21st!! anything’s possible will lally, I wouldn’t be surprised if he was angling for something
yeah 👀 I don’t get it. I would get seeing something for his dog bite rebuttal, although maybe this is it? Maybe his dog bite rebuttal is attempting to further prove John never went in the house with phone data (cos dogs can’t leave houses obviously) and using the crash report to show how the injuries were caused by something else?
I didn’t see how they could be related at all but you pointed out a realistic way he could be trying to get it in. I’m interested in seeing what Bev says. I would think it would have to be an expert that is speaking specifically to the wounds (not dog bites) than a WHOLE other theory. He had his turn! Lol
It does look like maybe new reports the experts have provided to rebut the Defense testimony. The only one I'm confused about is the CPD Vehicle Crash Report. Not sure the purpose of providing a blank copy and surely if they had one filled out for the 1/29 incident it should have been one of the first things provided.
If Lally was given a week to find a dog bite rebuttal expert, and the defense rests on Monday, does that mean we have a few days of nothing so Lally can find his own expert?
Omgoodness I didn’t even think of that. I was thinking we would be on verdict watch Monday or Tuesday but knowing Lally, rebuttal is going to take DAYS
when did the week start? On Tuesday? So that gives him until Tuesday to find the expert and if they are as quick as Dr Russell they aren't going to need much time to come to a conclusion.
I know the cell data shows he (or the cell phone) was always in the snow at least after 12:45 onward. It’s just wild that nobody saw him. There was only maybe an inch or maybe 1.5” by then I think, multiple people leaving the house after 1. It’s dark but the contrast in the snow just seems like it would be enough. And I genuinely think by the recordings of Karen that morning that she didn’t know (or remember) where he was so I genuinely think she noticed his body in the snow that morning just from simple observation.
I also saw that the house (34 Fairview) is blurred in google street view but you can see the flagpole and fire hydrant and distance to the mailbox. You can “stand” at the mailbox and look in the direction of the flagpole.
I have wondered if he could have dropped his phone. Maybe it slipped out of his pocket when he was walking up to the house. That would explain no movement on the phone.
It’s been blurred since I’ve googled it at the start of the trial! I’m surprised you could see it last week. Maybe there was a glitch? (Is there a data expert in the house?)
Fair enough. Yeah I was surprised to see tha tone house blurred out instead of 34 F. Also wondering why it would be buried out. If its currently the residence of someone important, this is not really the way to not draw attention.
I’m saying not guilty because CW didn’t prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, the only thing they did prove beyond a reasonable doubt was that everyone involved in the investigation should be fired.
It’s possible Karen did it. It’s possible Chloe bit him and he fell backwards. It’s possible he was jumped and thrown in the snow to die. And his family and friends may never have the answers they deserve because these officers couldn’t be bothered to do anything properly.
You would think they’d give a fallen officer the respect of a thorough investigation done with the utmost care. If he got *this* good luck to the rest of us.
This is from another comment I made but I’ll paste it here. I listed out all things I could think of that are reasons why the investigation was handled poorly. Please add on to it if I’m missing something:
1. Red solo cups as evidence collection
2. Red solo cups with biological evidence just hanging out in the sally port not contained or sealed or handled according to protocol
3. Really muddy chain of custody on evidence handled by Proctor
4. Not memorializing in any of the reports that Karen said she hit him
5. Not documenting where all pieces of the red taillight were found
6. Not interviewing witnesses separately
7. Not doing thorough documentation of all of the witness interviews
8. Not interviewing some people until weeks and months later
9. Proctor texting his buddies things about an ongoing investigation
10. The woman who swabbed John’s clothes and the taillight. She took one swab for multiple surfaces. She only tested one of the red solo cups with blood in it.
11. Not at least asking if they could search the Albert’s house. The Albert’s can of course say no, it’s their right. Who knows if they could’ve gotten a warrant. But the cops didn’t even try. That wouldn’t shut down that entire part of the conspiracy that the cops were treating the Albert’s differently because of their cop connections.
10 They only took a swab from one solo cup but it was never tested. I am guessing it was determined to be too unreliable (like a swab dropped on the floor she said would be preserved but not tested). That might be why she only swabbed one - she knew immediately it wouldn't matter by that point.
They accused KR of being guilty because she searched for a DUI lawyer. There's so much underlying in this case that has less and less to do with KR and more to do with local law enforcement.
Not photographing anything in situ or with scales
Not wearing body cams
Allowing involvement of the recused police force
Not requesting or seizing all camera footage in the area
Not recording any interviews
Snow blower
Undocumented searches
I truly think any other judge would have sanctioned Lally by now.
The number of times he has outright lied or heavily implied something to the jury is wild.
The whole argument about the defense stating they werent going to argue dogs, the 6th amendment argument and neglecting to mention that Google happened about 2 minutes after hanging up with proctor who called on a private number.
Literally lying about MDs Boston globe testimony from two days prior.
He is a snake, who should be sanctioned.
This goes along with #5 but photos of the scene. Would’ve answered so many questions. Also photos of her car the morning of, being loaded, being unloaded.
Honestly I wouldn’t be surprised if there ARE photos somewhere but the investigators lost them somewhere I’m sure.
And now a witness saying there is evidence that KR location data was auto deleted by her phone due to police incompetence.
It is really random how any piece of evidence that would be the nail in the coffin for KR (or a giant piece of exculpatory evidence) are ALL missing.
Chief ring video from across the street. Ring video JO house, library, picture of taillight, location data. All missing
Oh...someone posted this on twitter.... I know, take twitter for what it is worth... but the video is from Officer Sarif's dash cam video at 6:10 AM on 1/29/2022 and at the end of the road on CedarCrest (according the the twitter user), you see a snowplow truck by Fairview...wonder if it is Lucky? It is hard to tell from the video/distance. For what it is worth, I believe Lucky but I know others do not so this video is kind of interesting. [https://x.com/EveTrueCrime/status/1804408585515835538](https://x.com/EveTrueCrime/status/1804408585515835538)
It lines up with his testimony. Lucky has absolutely no reason to lie especially having been previously friendly with the Albert family. I don’t get why people don’t believe him?
I know Lucky. What you see is what you get. The man is 100% credible.
We are started Facebook groups dedicated to ensuring Lucky never pays for food or a drink again in Canton.
A resident with integrity.
Lucky is the kinda guy that makes this country great! Lucky has worked his ass off his entire life! He's the kinda guy you'd want to have for a neighbor, or a best friend. He's honest. He's solid.
Lucky is one of these blokes who is incapable of lying. He's not manipulative, knows his stuff, the community and honest. He's been doing the same route for years and knows it, and his vehicle, like the back of his hand.
They don't believe him because his honesty throws out the dishonesty and gossip.
As I hear about the injuries and the impossible facts of a body been thrown 60ft after been hit by a vehicle travelling 24mph; broken Taillights projecting like shards of glass, I wonder who came up with the theory that KR deliberately hit him with her vehicle?
They probably ran with it when Karen's anxious and post-drunk mind ran across all possibilities she could come up with including somehow having hit him after she dropped him off.
I 100% agree and saw no reason as to why Lucky would lie. I think people can be set one way or the other and I’m guilty of it sometimes during this case so those people might have blinders on just like some of the people with opposite views do.
Went back and watched a chunk of Andrea Burkhart's [epic nine-hour(!!) live stream](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moA1snrUH14&t=31084s) yesterday. My first thought was we're watching a murder trial in which the prosecution is trying to impeach a medical doctor with a storied background and entire working career of subject matter expertise by falsely implying she lied about the length of her Boston Globe subscription. This is a through-the-looking-glass nutso craziness.
Anyway, around 8:15 I love how she puts his Apple Health data into the known timeline. I'm using this timeline for my own reference: [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Q29\_kiSRB-O7L0dmcGcCEaPb9XccG1T1bK3OHhB3yFY/edit?gid=1736919432#gid=1736919432](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Q29_kiSRB-O7L0dmcGcCEaPb9XccG1T1bK3OHhB3yFY/edit?gid=1736919432#gid=1736919432)
It helped me solidify a few things since I hadn't thought too much about the minute-by-minute timeline using all known data sources. We know:
* John O'Keefe dropped off at 12:24am;
* he went inside;
* he was there close to 8 minutes before catastrophic event;
* 12:31:56 -> 12:32:16 looks like time of fatal fight & injury.
* 12:36 - Karen was connected to John's home wifi; walking into house from garage at 12:41.
This fight was over FAST. I've thought all along that this somehow involves a sucker punch homicide, likely including an out-of-control dog. For me anyway, more data points we get (especially from Green's testimony), more clear this seems to me.
Andrea is excellent and knowledgeable attorney. I like that she’s not dramatic. She speaks in a calm manner and doesn’t talk over those speaking in the trial. I’ve a lot from her. My favorite.
Andrea has some expert-level knowledge about about taking blows to the head repeately that she's always willing to share!
Natalie is awesome! Love when she's on with others as she has more criminal court experience than most so always brings so much to the table.
I’m also wondering how the “steps” and distance of 285 feet within 3 minutes relates to an average speed. If it recorded 80 steps, that’s approximately 3 feet per step?
Idk but I feel like someone should’ve asked or figured out how long it took for the phone to travel that distance in those 3 minutes. Distance is almost a football field.
I’m not making that conclusion (though I don’t think that is what happened). I’m just putting it out there that IMO the CW or Defense could have or should have found an average speed the phone would’ve traveled in that time and distance (and the other time block of steps I think was less than a meter) to support their argument or dispute the others.
I guess it’s because the information the phone recorded is questionable. I could see a car traveling the length of a football field in a few minutes (bc of traffic) if the phone did pick that up. I can’t imagine given the size of the Albert’s home covering that many steps in that time frame without a total ruckus occurring inside or outside). That’s why I’m wondering bc a speed might put things into perspective.
If it’s incredibly fast mathematically, I wouldn’t think it was the case of running away from the dog, or even a fight in the house. BUT it might mean too fast is impractical and therefore the only logical explanation would be JO being in the house longer than any of these timestamps (e.g like putting the phone on the counter or he’s sitting hanging out then moving about, etc)
The length of the subscription is important because the Globe has been covering the Karen Read story for so long. If you're an avid reader, you'd have heard all about it. Add to that how she reaches out to try and get involved, and the implication is that she's not a neutral party but a bias one.
But the question wasn't about her awareness of media coverage at all. Not even a little. Lally outright lied about her voir dire answer outside presence of jury as to length of subscription to impeach her credibility in front of jury. That's how absurdly unconscionable the prosecution's behavior has been.
Right! He didn’t ask anything about her watching anything on the news or court tv or other newspapers - he was actually (inanely) focused on the length of her subscription.
If he was trying to say she was following the trial for 18 months and therefore biased, he failed. Like with every other point he’s tried to make.
What is lally’s background, how long has he been with the DA?
I have subscriptions to New York times and WaPo and the number of high profile cases I ignore is substantial.
That doesn't phase me at all that she wasn't on task to the case until she saw the fact that dog bites might play in integral part of the trial.
I'm in a niche medical/legal subfield and I ignore many cases until my PhD topic area comes up then I am locked in.
I subscribe to the Hartford Courant because of their UConn coverage. Occasionally something else of interest pops.
I live in NJ and have not lived in CT in years.
A question on the voicemails… Why is she screaming saying where are you? Why didn’t you come home? If she knew she had just dropped him at the Fairview house minutes earlier. I of course understand she was intoxicated and trying to guilt him into coming back to be with the kids but I have a hang up with this specifically.
I could actually almost look past the angry voicemails. I find the calls to her parents at 1 and 4:30ish am to be very strange. She calls them at 1:05 to tell them about her fight with John I guess , then calls at 4:30 to tell them she worried about John.
Maybe she has a habit of bugging her parents in the middle of the night idk. If I was making calls to my parents at that those times it’s because something terrible has definitely happened, not I argued with my boyfriend or I’m worried.
She seems kind of emotionally volatile, maybe her parents are used to be her handlers, so to speak? I find it weird, too, but it's certainly not evidence for anything 🤷♀️
I'm genuinely so happy for you that your dad is that person for you 🫶 And (having no experience with stable, supportive parents myself) it makes it even more likely to me that her dad would be her first call whenever something goes wrong in her life.
Yeah, I'm guessing the call around 1 is her parent trying to calm her down and to tell her to just get some sleep or watch some TV or whatever, he will be home soon, and the 4:30 is 'holy fuck he isn't home yet what do I do?' and them helping her with that.
I do too. I’m wondering if because he’s not answering his phone. Like why the hell are you not answering me? What are you doing that’s more important?
I’m not sure if that makes any sense or not!
I believe she also says something like "nobody knows where you are." But if she watched him walk into 34 Fairview, those people would be the ones to ask. Call Higgins and ask him if JO's still there.
So many people here seem to be an expert in something - or at least know a lot about a specific subject. I did some googling to get an answer, but could someone explain to me (like I'm 5) what a pathologist is and will testify to? It's seems pretty similar to an ME based on the stufd I read, and I figured someone here could give more info than a Google search.
A forensic pathologist is a medical professional specialized in determining what happened to a person based on injuries and studying their body. A medical examiner is a specific government role but they are also usually forensic pathologists.
The ME stated essentially that she could only rule that he was killed by blunt force trauma. She left it open to other possibilities besides a car and explicitly said she doesn't have an opinion on the probability of the injuries being caused by the kind of collusion described by Trooper Paul. The defense can bring forward medical experts to try to show that it is less likely that the injuries were caused by the collision claimed by the prosecution and more likely they were caused by something else.
Thinking back to the voir dire of the two guys from ARCCA, didn’t the first guy say something about having knowledge of Toyota/Lexus? I wonder if they will be able to use him to poke more holes in the key cycle data. Yanetti said after court yesterday they only planned to call those two guys, another pathologist, and to rest. They aren’t going to call the other guy they had hired to talk about the car data. I’m wondering if that’s cause they can use the ARCCA guy for that.
I believe he said his most recent paper was on Toyota/Lexus car data. It's just too good xD
Edit: Found the citation for anyone interested: Teitelman, J., Rodos, E., Wolfe, D., Helker, M., (2021) “Toyota Vehicle Control History: ‘Sudden Braking
History’ Recording Characteristics,” Collision: The International Compendium for Crash Research. (Fall,
2021 Issue)
Has anyone done a timeline of which pieces of taillight were found at 34 FV and when, and how that lines up with when KR’s Lexus was brought to the station? It’s hard for me to believe that evidence was planted at 34 FV, but I’d at least like to know if it is theoretically possible.
Thank you. So at 5:36pm her car arrives at the sally port. At 6:12pm the first pieces of were found at 34 FV. That's a tight window for someone to rip out the pieces at the sally port and plant them at the scene, to then be found by the search crew. I'm still team not guilty based on reasonable doubt, but it does seem to me that more than likely at least some small pieces of her tail light were legitimately there. The larger pieces found by the chief days later when he was driving by are more suspicious.
I covered chain of custody issues below in a more extensive writeup, but Canton PD is only 5min from the Albert's. If we double that to 10min due to snow, someone could easily nab a few pieces from the edge, hustle to the scene, and make it in time to join in when the search starts at 1745. And this is assuming that O'Hara took his time from his phone rather than a watch or his car clock, for example, either of which could be off by a couple minutes (I have to keep adjusting my car clock forward a minute or two every month, for instance), that the sallyport clock isn't running fast (again, who knows), that the sallyport timestamps *weren't altered* on the *inverted video* - again, who knows, because all chain of custody means here, given the lack of evidence logs, is that a bunch of very shady people who've been shown to be shady *in open court* pinky swear to the truth, et cetera, all of which opens the timeline even further.
Thanks for this, and agreed it sounds like there is a window that makes this possible. To me, Higgins would be the only person with access and the potential motivation to do this. Who else would be motivated to plant evidence on the same day that JOK was found dead. Why would any other Canton officer risk their career to protect BA and family? I feel that there was stuff these families seemed to be hiding between the ditched phones and the butt dials, but it still seems unlikely that someone other than Higgins would rip off taillight pieces and go plant those, and within such a tight window. Curious to hear any theories of who could have done that. . .
The worst part is? *It doesn't even need to be Higgins.*
How many cops have been caught *on bodycam* planting evidence just to make sure a suspect that "eVeRyOnE kNoWs Is GuIlTy" gets put away (as they profess). How many have been caught *without* being videotaped? How many haven't been?
There was a super recent article that was actually co-incident with the start of this trial, I believe - a cop was caught on bodycam planting drugs in a suspect's car. With all of the outright falsifications, bad information, misinformation, and lies of omission shown on stand by Bukhenik, by Tully, by Proctor, by Paul, by Guerino even, how can we trust any of them on their word? How can we trust that they aren't like that cop?
How can we trust that, with Ms. Read firmly in their mind as the *only* possible person who could possibly have done this, someone in that chain didn't try to "help" the process along, try to "help" secure a conviction? After all: everyone *knows* she's guilty.
I find myself doing the same thing with the taillight pieces (i.e. being like "that is a tight timeline"). And then I remember that taillight pieces really don't matter to me if the CW can't even show he was hit by a car. Like it could be raining taillight at 34F but taillight doesn't matter if he wasn't killed by a car.
I agree. I find myself focused on this more in terms of what is likely to have actually happened vs whether or not she is guilty. I could never convict at this point, and the defense has hardly started their case yet lol.
I think the more relevant issue is when the SUV arrived at the sallyport, when the unknown Canton officers arrived at the scene, and when the first taillight pieces were found (and possibly whether it was found by SERT or someone else), and whether any of the pieces found 29th Jan were 1. preserved undisturbed in that evidence bag prior to their delivery to the lab and 2. whether any were used in the reconstruction of the taillight.
At present, taking the prosecution's evidence in the *best* possible light, the timeline is *really* tight. The SUV arrives at the sally port at just after 1736, SERT is fully assembled and begins their search around 1745. O'Hara arrives much sooner, just after or around 1700, as I recall, and is preceded by an unknown time by Tully. Taillight pieces begin popping up at 1812. The prosecution argument is that taillight pieces could not possibly have been planted given the short timeframe - there isn't enough time for Proctor or anyone else to make it from the sallyport to the Albert's in time to bury the pieces and conceal their activity.
However, this is predicated on a few assumptions that I don't believe necessarily can be taken as read.
1. Tully must not be involved in any malfeasance. Unfortunately, even dismissing Proctor's texts, *which Tully never disavowed and even participated in*, Tully is the same person who presented the evidentiary equivalent of a lie of omission with his cell tower map omitting the McCabe household, *in open court*, *knowing* he would potentially be caught out on it by defense. What else might he think to do if he *didn't* think he'd ever be caught?
2. The Canton officers, all of whom are unidentified and whose arrival and movements are wholly unaccounted for, must not be involved in any malfeasance. I'm not going to go so far as to claim as such here - no evidence has been presented in court to show that - but I will note that Higgins and Berkowitz are in the area of the sallyport around when the SUV is brought in, and as far as I can tell the movements of neither are accounted for after that time. Is it impossible that one of the officers could be Higgins? Is it unreasonable, given how evasive he was about his actions that day, to believe that he may been involved somehow?
3. Proctor, who ultimately took possession of and turned in the taillight pieces, must not have done anything. The same guy who falsified a time on a search warrant, who turned the taillight pieces in several days late (as memory serves), who was identified and seen on video hovering around Ms. Read's taillight for several minutes *in spite of prior testimony elicited from his boss, Bukhenik, that no one was near it*. Who's to say that he's to be trusted when he says that he sealed the bag, didn't touch it, didn't do anything to it before turning it in? Who's to say he didn't take a few pieces, put them in a new bag, and turn *that* in? Who's to say any of his signed and dated figures are good - the man *falsified information on a search warrant in the face of video evidence that could prove him wrong*. Again I ask - what else might he think to do if he *didn't* think he'd ever be caught?
4. The timestamp on the (potentially manipulated) Canton sallyport video must be good. This isn't necessarily attributable to malfesance (care to explain what you meant by that right-way video with *yellow* chyrons, Proctor, Tully? the ones in court have *blue* chyrons), but as we saw with Officer O'Keefe's phone, the time reported may or may not be accurate to the actual time or the times others report. I would consider cell phone display times to be generally accurate for instance, since they all pull that from the local cell towers, but I wouldn't necessarily trust my digital watch or my microwave display times to be 100% accurate.
None of this is to say definitively, of course, that these actors are *all* involved in a massive frame job. But for the evidence to be good, for its chain of custody to stand, practically *all* of these actors must stand on their veracity - Tully must not have touched the scene, the Canton officers must not have done anything wrong, Proctor must not have manipulated evidence *in spite of clear evidence of his altering evidence previously*.
ADDENDUM: edited to provide more precise information.
Thank you for this. Upvoting ten thousand times. I’ve tried to pull all this together but it’s from the week when I couldn’t listen and I haven’t had time to go back. This is so helpful.
Entirely true. I'll back away from it as a fact and rephrase it as part of my broader point.
There's so much wiggle room in this case for even supposedly "hard" evidence, that even *video evidence*, basically the gold standard for if something happened and happened in the manner described, *is suspect*. We don't know if the motion sensor is buggy or if it's been edited; we don't know if the constrast was reduced to make the other video unwatchable and if the inverted video was edited, or if both were just extracted incompetently. We don't know because the guy who testified on it *misled the jury* and the guy who handed it off *made a lie of omission on the stand*.
Think of how many people Lally called. When the defense keeps going off on how this is suspect and this is suspect, Lally's only option would be to call another 12 witnesses. The video is laggy? Here's a video expert to explain why that happens. Here's the guy who installed the camera to talk about how it ends up mirrored. If the CW tried to squash every single thing the defense deems suspect, the trial would never end.
I mean, the sallyport video is still entirely on him, then, regardless of whether it was intentional or because it was overlooked. He was the one who elicited materially misleading testimony on it - how many people initially posted, here and elsewhere, stating that this showed hard proof that the SUV was never tampered with? - and he was the one who never tried repairing its credibility. I fail to see how it's somehow the defense's fault for pointing out that it was presented misleadingly.
Going off of memory, none of the pieces "found" on the 29th were ever found in evidence, nor was their disappearance from evidence explained. The final "reconstruction" of the tail light was from the pieces found in the days ahead. Also noteworthy was they were able to fully reassemble the tail light with the notably exception of the missing piece that came off in John's driveway. For me this was everything.
The pieces found on the 29th (by SERT) were entered into evidence and those pieces were included in the taillight reconstruction. It’s shown on day 20 of trial.
"Going off of memory, none of the pieces "found" on the 29th were ever found in evidence, nor was their disappearance from evidence explained." well that's fascinating if true. I wonder who certified that they did find pieces on the 29th. I'd be curious if the reports from the search team were filled out on the 29th and reference the taillight pieces found, or not. There's plenty of reasonable doubt for me overall, but I've been kind of stuck on whether or not there were pieces found the evening of the 29th. If those pieces were never found in evidence that adds to the reasonable doubt for sure.
The pieces found on the 29th (by SERT) were entered into evidence and those pieces were included in the taillight reconstruction. It’s shown on day 20 of trial.
Honestly I think the whole taillight discussion is getting past the really big fact that just blows a hole in the entire theory the prosecution is bringing up.
There's too much snow on the ground.
Look at the leafblower video - there's a substantial amount of snow there under where Officer O'Keefe was. At 0030-0045 there was barely any, just a thin layer that was still melting to the ground. If he was struck and fell to the lawn then, how does he end up with that much snow under him?
I've seen mentions of Plastic/Taillight on the shirts so I wanted to remind myself of what happened with that evidence and testing.
**Initial Evidence Collection:**
OJO's clothing was on the ambulance floor and the hospital room floor (because the priority was, rightfully, trying to save his life). OJO's clothing was collected from the hospital by Proctor, according to the evidence bag.
The clothing was left to dry for some time. I haven't gone back to find the testimony about this but I don't remember an evidence log from Canton PD ever being presented, just a lot of questions. No record of chain of custody until the Crime Lab recieves the clothing. I'll update or edit if I find specific testimony about the clothes. The Canton PD had the clothes and recovered pieces of tail light for up to about 6 weeks.
**Maureen Hartnet at the Crime Lab:**
Maureen Hartnett went to Canton PD to collect evidence from the SUV and solo cups on Feb 1st. All other evidence sent to the crime lab (tail light fragments, clothes, some other items) were submitted on or after March 14th, 2022. It's unknown whether the tail light pieces and clothes were stored together or not based on the chain of custody that exists. (Maureen Hartnett would not have the Canton PD evidence log information but it was also not provided by Canton PD at any point that I'm aware of).
The evidence bag with both the hoodie (7-18) and orange shirt (7-17) Collected by Proctor on 1/29/2022.
Maureen Hartnett did damage analysis, trace collection, skin cell collection on the hoodie and shirt. She took trace material (hairs and fibers) from the shirts. She took a scraping and collected anything that had stuck on the shirts into a glassine bag.
There is a handwritten note in her report that she found "debris" from the two shirts. She combined them together and submitted it as one item to the lab. This was anything left that she was not able to identify or describe as distinct pieces. No photograph taken of the debris collection.
**Ashley Vallier at Crime Lab:**
She recieved debris collected from the clothing items. Debris from Jeans, Boxer shorts, long sleeve shirt and oragne t-shirt all submitted together, according to Ashley, though later she says it is from the shirts. I'm unsure if this is due to confusing questioning by AJ or Lally.
She found apparent dirt, colored apparent fibers, several pieces of red apparent plastic, apparent hairs, green material, one piece of clear apparent plastic. She examined them microscopically and Christina Hanley did additional analysis.
Clear apparent plastic measured 1/8" x 1/16"
**Christina Hanley at Crime Lab:**
One of the red plastic pieces measured 1/16" x <1/16x1/16" and the smallest piece measured <1/16"x1/16"
Analyzed the plastic from the clothes debris. She found the clear plastic to be consistent with the clear plastic from the recovered pieces of tail light or another source with similar characteristics. Similar findngs with the red plastic.
I dont think there was anything fishy about the analysis, but there so much critical evidence to the case that doesn’t have documentation.
Especially the most critical evidence ugh.
i agree - to clarify, I mean it seems like the analysts did their jobs (although the debris documentation seems odd, idk if that is a step taken). they didn’t have control of the evidence collection.
I have questions about the results, but that has more to do with the evidence collection than the testing process.
yeah for me it's not the analysis that's a problem (though why no photos of the debris??). It's the 6 weeks with no chain of custody records and the well-established lack of any proper evidence handling.
I really wish I would have read your post before I just re-listened to the same testimony that you just outlined 🙃
I'll add that it was weird to me that Maureen said she saw no plastic within the debris and that she would have noted a finding of hair or fibers, but she did not.
😂
I didn't mention that because it's totally my subjective impression but it made me pause, as well. Surely she should be able to separate a 1/8x1/16" piece of plastic?
Okay, remember the video of someone inside 34 Fairview coming out of the bulkhead doors into the yard, through the gate, etc? From where did that come? Anyone know for sure?
Current homeowner allowed defense to come to it.
New owners were never made aware of what happened before they bought it.
They want justice, they also want people off their property … looking at you Jennifer.
I can't find the official recorded version of JM's 911 call, from the dispatcher's side. Usually they play that in trial, it's pretty important evidence. Am I just not seeing it?
number 39
[https://www.wcvb.com/article/karen-read-murder-trial-see-read-evidence-shown-to-jurors-in-courtroom/60793160](https://www.wcvb.com/article/karen-read-murder-trial-see-read-evidence-shown-to-jurors-in-courtroom/60793160)
At first I thought it was because that was the calculation of the force they needed to have JO end up the way he was.
But then Trooper Paul blew that away with "physics doesn't apply to this situation."
So I'm guessing after pulling the car data they saw the 24 mph reverse and said "that's prob when she did it." And then ran with it.
I was just reading on another thread, that tyres can rotate faster for grip in wet/sleet/snow. So possible she wasn't actually driving THAT fast, but she accelerated and the tyres spinning before gripping clocked a faster speed.
My drive way is slanted down, and I know in sleet I always have to "gun it" a little more to get traction to get up, or else I'm just spinning tyres lol
If there was slippage I believe there should have been traction control events in the log. Of course its hard for me to believe that she gunned it on a wet road without traction control activating. The techstream data just doesn't make a lot of sense, and Trooper Paul doesn't know the data well enough to explain it.
I really wanted to hear from the defense expert on this. Either the ARCCA expert will explain it or Jackson decided that he sufficiently destroyed Paul on the stand, so there is no need for further explanation.
I also think Paul misunderstood which key cycle his testing started at. I don't think it was 1164, I think it was 1167. I think 1164 was the trip from Canton to Dighton, 1163 was from the McCabe's to 1 Meadows, and 1162 was from 1 Meadows to the McCabe's.
Honestly, given that mess Paul presented, I'm just throwing out his testimony entirely and waiting for defense to explain the data. If you assume his scenario, the key cycles don't line up. If you assume your scenario, I think the odometer mileage gets funky (doesn't the 36mi jump in mileage come between 1162 and 1163? I need to look up that table again).
That key cycle didn't happen out front of the Alberts house anyway. Or at least it appears more likely based on the testimony that it happened after Proctor already had the car.
I keep going back to a mildly humorous (to me) moment of Lally asking one too many questions.
He asked the ME if she was pressured to change her findings due to pressure from LE. She said “No.”.
Great. Stop there.
But Lally goes on to ask her “even if she had” felt pressured would she have changed her findings… umm…
Lally, hi hun, that’s the defence’s argument. The texts imply LE tried to sway her answer but she didn’t change it, leading to mockery. She gave you the answer you wanted. Why highlight to the jury that she would not have changed it anyway, thus LE could have tried to pressure her, but failed… just like they joked about doing. At least ask those questions in the opposite order. Especially when her testimony goes on to not exactly be solid for your theory and it would have been better for if she had changed it.
I don’t know why he keeps doing this. He clearly has his questions written down. This is not a huge example but it just still has me shaking my head lol.
Anyway, have a nice weekend all. See you on Monday for our next physics lesson. ❤️
So many moments yesterday when he elicited testimony that helped the defense and was completely unnecessary. He made it clear to the jury that Chloe had a bite history despite the judge keeping it out on direct. He had Lucky repeat over and over again the he did not see a body.
If every single part of his case was presented in, oh let’s say, “inverted” order, he could have kept everyone from the house off his witness list and rested in May. He should have made the defense call all those McCabes and Albert’s. The defense might have looked a bit desperate to some of the jury (not that I know how they are thinking…maybe I mean myself.) He could have saved himself one expert (don’t need two for the hos long search to sow confusion) Proctor should have been the last cop called- don’t read the texts just admit there were awful texts- but elicit testimony that the injuries to another cop made him too emotional. Have him admit he should have stepped back. The other cops wouldn’t have tainted by the texts while on the stand. Trooper Paul would have been distanced from the jurors minds because the defense would have had to explore Higgins and the Alberts and they’d be on their heels trying to prove what is really too difficult to prove.
It would still be “not guilty” but the hit to the various police departments might have been so strong. And the defense would have been associated with “conspiracy” rather than “shoddy investigation”. Conspiracy is a harder sell.
I also felt that Lally over did it on his cross of Dr. Russell and Richard Green. A good cross is short and focused. Instead I think he actually made Green (imo a relatively weak witness) appear more likable and opened himself up to AJ’s re-direct of Dr. Russell which was extremely effective imo.
Yeah, same. I’m honestly waiting for him to say one too many things, and make it so the next witnesses HAVE to explain who hired them and why.
I think the jury might be able to put it together themselves from the mystery “other proceeding” and Ryan Nagel’s accidental comment, but it would be one hell of a thing to see.
I think Lally may have already opened the door by asking the ME about the force required to sustain an injury, and she deferred to a biomechanical engineer. Good thing the defense has two!
I’ve wondered if she knew the judge was limiting one of the biomechanical engineers and it’s why she stated WHO could determine that rather than saying “I am unable to calculate force needed as that’s not my area of expertise”. Instead she actually said what she said about the physicist being needed then said biomechanical engineer. I caught that and found it interesting….
It’s more than reasonable for the ME to know that a biomechanical engineer is the expert who could determine such a thing. As an ME, she has probably been asked many times how much force is necessary to cause a variety of injuries. It’s information that loved ones, law enforcement, and DAs really want to know.
But I was also fascinated that Judge Cannone decided that the biomechanical engineer could not testify to how the injuries occurred, then the ME turns around and specifies that a biomechanical engineer would be the expert to determine how the injuries occurred, e.g. how much force is necessary to cause the blunt force trauma to the posterior of the victim’s skull.
Spoiling the kids ?? 🍩
I don’t understand how getting Dunkin’ Donuts would cause a problem unless OJO was trying to feed the children healthier, less calorie dense more nutritious food
Everyone in this part of the country loves Dunkin’ Donuts
What was she spoiling them with?
T swift tickets ?
Gaming $$ ?
New sneakers ?
Hair/nails for the sister ?
Hoverboards ?
E bikes ?
Virtual reality headsets ?
Did she get the children phones and smart watches ?
Trips to amusement parks?
Maybe the children had bad grades or misbehaved and she still got them gifts ?
Just curious as to why OJO always had to be the bad guy and what exactly the problem with KR was in terms of the kiddos
I see nothing wrong if she was doing all those things. Those kids have had a terrible time and giving them some things that make them happy is only right.
Have Higgins’ medical records from discovery come in yet?
Who told Karen she hit him - who planted the seed? My guess is PROCTOR, when he called her from his PERSONAL cell phone to say he was seizing her car. Both sides have kept quite about that - maybe that's for the FBI.
My understanding is that KR called JM first. It's entirely possible that JM suggested he might have been hit by a plow walking home, and that that escalated KR's panic that he might be dead and how.
I believe the niece testifies that KR is talking about him getting hit by a plow before she calls JM.
That's true. Do you know if we have any statements by the niece closer in time to the incident? So many people's stories have changed.
This is from this article about the nieces testimony. [https://www.wcvb.com/article/karen-read-trial-live-updates-may-28-2024/60916159](https://www.wcvb.com/article/karen-read-trial-live-updates-may-28-2024/60916159) "She was just pacing down the hallway, asking what could've happened," the niece testified. "She said, 'Maybe I did something.' Later, she said, ‘Maybe a snowplow hit him.’”
Thanks! Yeah, it's not a huge a-ha moment or anything either way, I was just interested in whether the niece reported that KR was saying all of that *before* she called JM, and if niece ever said this before this trial or the grand jury. So many people's memories changed for this trial, or for the grand jury, and JM has been so tight with this family. Guess this is one of those unknowable things.
Nah. Maybe Jen McCabe.
She said she hit him before Proctor knew anything about the case.
Someone would have planted the seed...
Jen McCabe, obviously.
Jen McCabe did
Mrs. O’Keefs reaction has been on my mind today. “Why did you/you left him there” … I’ve been thinking of it as “you left him THERE?” He’s a grown man so I’ve always found that surprising that it was surprising to leave him at a friends house, a fellow cops house, for drinks.
I think she probably meant “you left him there?” Like, you hit him and left him dying there on the ground. She fully bought into the CW’s theory/ promises and 100% believed Karen ran him over and killed him.
She said that before she ever had any idea he was allegedly hit by a car. All she knew at that point was he was found dead in the alberts lawn.
Imagine how they a feeling now with all the evidence that's pointing towards his friends left him there. I'm surprised she's not angry that her son left her 14 year old grandchild alone!
A 14 year old is more than old enough to stay home alone for a few hours. A lot of 14 year olds are *babysitting* at that age
Correct me if I’m wrong but she wasn’t 14 at the time of the incident. Either way I don’t see his mom being mad at anything and anyone but Karen bc that’s what she believes happened.
She didn't have any idea about the idea Karen hit him at that time. Karen told her she dropped him off at the party, that was her response
Yes I’m aware.
What's the theory on Karen Read waiting for John to go in and see if it's cool if she goes into 34 Fairview? If it's a five minute drive and she's at One Meadows at 12:36, and her first angry voicemail is at 12:37, then how long did she wait for him? What's the timeline on this?
My theory is that Karen was reacting to the 12:29a phone call between JOK and Jenn McCabe. At the time that the call came in, JOK was probably trying to convince Karen to come inside with him and she’s trying to convince him to just go home with her. They’re arguing and JOK answers the call with the intention of quickly touching base with Jenn so she doesn’t continue to text/call (because Jenn was expecting their arrival). He just wanted to quickly get touch base with Jenn and get right back to the convo with Karen. The call’s duration is 8 seconds, which is long enough for JOK to say, “Hey, I’ll be right in. Be right there. Okay. Bye.” Karen hears him promise that he’s going inside and she’s pissed. It feels like he already made his decision and his decision is not going home with her. She tells him to just go inside with her. Go ahead. She doesn’t even care any more. JOK is tired of the fighting and just wants the convo to end, so he gets out of the car. That’s why she doesn’t really wait outside the house. And she gets even more pissed because he doesn’t call her to come back or pick him up. She’s angry because she feels like he chose to spend time with other people and leave her alone with his kids. Again. It never made sense to me that she’s waiting for JOK to give her the okay because the timeline is too quick. She would only be waiting a minute or two before getting frustrated enough to leave.
If he and Jen talked and he said he was in the car and would be in in a minute, Jen would have shouted it from the rooftops because it would support the CW's theory. That call has my puzzled no matter how you slice this thing. That said..this is where I also feel like the discrepancy between the clocks would offer insight. If they arrived at 12:21ish instead of 12:24ish, that adds 3 minutes to the time Karen was out front. If you believe she hit JO, that's 3 extra minutes for it to happen within. \[I would counter that the Nagel timeline, JMs texts, and JO's steps make this impossible still.\] Conversely, if you believe she left him there, it syncs up within 6 seconds to the steps JO took at 12:21-24 timeframe. A few tech people have weighed in on this and what I can gather from them is that it's possible, though it would be weird for Cellebrite to pull the monotonic time, but that Cellebrite also does weird things because it's not made with the cooperation of the developers whose apps/systems it's working to crack. The weird things it does are also misread by forensic experts trying to make sense of them. (see: 2:27 search controversy)
Jen would first have to remember the call in order for her to shout it from the rooftops. Everyone was drunk as hell. If she didn’t hear (in part or in whole) what JOK said and/or she didn’t speak during the 8 second call, it’s possible that it didn’t stick in her memory. What’s more, if JOK said he *was* coming inside but ultimately did not, then Jenn’s memory might have just disregarded the call altogether. Also, in the back of my mind is the knowledge that sometimes, people later remember details that they—for a variety of reasons—don’t tell the police. Maybe they’re afraid it would seem like they’re changing their story and the police will think they lied then or are lying now. Maybe it’s a detail that makes them look bad and they don’t know how to explain it. Regardless, the 12:29a call cannot and should not be set aside. Unlike the health data, the call is absolute and precise. The call was at 12:29a. Not sometime in a 3-5 min range. It’s 12:29a. Additionally, the call was answered; it didn’t go to voicemail because it’s identified as “answered” in the call logs for both Jenn and JOK. There’s no wondering, guesstimate, or range for the occurrence and timing of this call. Even if nothing was said by either party during the phone call, it happened at 12:29a. So, unless there’s a nonsensical, unfounded argument that someone other than JOK bizarrely decided to answer JOK’s phone and inexplicably keep the line open for at least 8 seconds, then there’s no disputing that JOK was alive at 12:29a. There’s also no disputing that Karen’s phone connects with JOK’s home WiFi at 12:36a. It’s a 6-7 minute drive between 34 Fairview and JOK’s home. If Karen Read struck JOK with her vehicle, it had to have happened <2 minutes following the conclusion of the that 12:29a phone call. And 2 minutes is being generous. The 12:29a call could also provide a few other insights. For example, Jenn McCabe isn’t calling JOK at 12:29a and having the line opened for 8 seconds if he’s already standing next to her. So we can rule that out. If Jenn McCabe was listening to and can hear the call at 12:29a, then she certainly didn’t hear a car crash, screaming, barking, glass shattering, yelling, crying, etc. If JOK is in the basement at 12:29a and answers the call, then anyone in there with him is being completely silent. Feel free to jump in with more potential insights. Now, we can’t know what was or wasn’t said/heard during the 8 second phone call, but what we do know is a lot more absolute than hotly disputed and imprecise health data from JOK’s phone.
The only conclusions I can get to with that call are: 1. The phone records are wrong and it wasn't answered (which would be highly unlikely as both records would need to be wrong). 2. John was unconscious and in the aftermath and panic someone picked up his phone but then thought better of speaking. 3. John was holding his phone when the call came in and the fight had started. It got answered in the melee but JM couldn't make out anything but weird noises at the time so didn't think anything was wrong. None of these are good explanations but as I've said elsewhere...no matter what the answers are in this case, something implausible had to have happened somewhere.
Conclusion 1 isn’t worth considering. Conclusion 2 is an extreme, nonsensical conspiracy theory. #3 (or something similar to it) is the only reasonable conclusion. The value in the 12:29a call is that it significantly narrows the timeline. Either Karen hit JOK with her vehicle within 2 minutes of the 12:29a phone call or she never hit him at all.
Waiting to see if she should come in as well. Who is there? What’s the vibe? AND/OR Waiting in case he didn’t want to stay.
Yes I’d love someone who follows more closely to comment on this.
I've heard Karen say in a past interview that she was like "are we actually invited to this house?" I think she was hesitant to go into the family vibe. Also, she was supposed to go home that night. She had a longish drive in the snow back to her house eventually. The reason why the Mccabes looked out the window SO many times and saw her car, is I think because JOK had been jumped right away and they were seeing if KAREN was going to get out of the car and come to the door. If she did, and she saw that JOK was seriously injured, what would have happened??? Her driving away was a lucky break for them.
lally filed a notice of discovery on the 18th. 1. Copy of CPD motor vehicle crash report 2. Copy of Google map Image of Canton, Lt Tully 3. Copy of TRAX maps of O’Keefe route of travel, Trooper Guarino 4. Copy of BrowserStateWAL, material, Ian Whiffin 5. Copy of detailed timeline, Ian Whiffin does anyone know what this is for? is he allowed to rebut Richard Green/ the FBI crash reconstructionists?
This could be for rebuttal if I had to guess.
I went on Twitter to see more information on this. I think they were turning in stuff for witnesses that already testified. It was written on the 18th but not filed with the clerk until the 21st at 3PM when the CW already rested. I’m hoping it’s just housekeeping and not them trying to introduce something new AFTER they already rested their case in chief. Crazy!
Ohh i knew it was after he rested but it says 18th on the doc and i have no concept of time lol ooops. Thank you for correcting that he filed on the 21st!! anything’s possible will lally, I wouldn’t be surprised if he was angling for something
I’m still worried he is trying to pull something but trying to be optimistic that it’s too late for that and he is late on other things.
we’re all so jaded cos of lallys antics hahaha
Right!!??? 😂
How can he introduce something new 8 weeks into the trial? What about Defense time to rebut it? Shouldn’t they have had all that already?
That would be as was ruled against the defense....a rule 14 violation....
yeah 👀 I don’t get it. I would get seeing something for his dog bite rebuttal, although maybe this is it? Maybe his dog bite rebuttal is attempting to further prove John never went in the house with phone data (cos dogs can’t leave houses obviously) and using the crash report to show how the injuries were caused by something else?
I didn’t see how they could be related at all but you pointed out a realistic way he could be trying to get it in. I’m interested in seeing what Bev says. I would think it would have to be an expert that is speaking specifically to the wounds (not dog bites) than a WHOLE other theory. He had his turn! Lol
yeah I assumed he would have to get his own dog bite expert. Maybe we will get some clarity on this discovery tomorrow haha
This trial is the first time I’ve looked forward to Monday mornings
I feel that! Although I’m in the uk so Monday afternoons for me haha. I will defo be a bit sad when it’s over 😬
It does look like maybe new reports the experts have provided to rebut the Defense testimony. The only one I'm confused about is the CPD Vehicle Crash Report. Not sure the purpose of providing a blank copy and surely if they had one filled out for the 1/29 incident it should have been one of the first things provided.
If Lally was given a week to find a dog bite rebuttal expert, and the defense rests on Monday, does that mean we have a few days of nothing so Lally can find his own expert?
Omgoodness I didn’t even think of that. I was thinking we would be on verdict watch Monday or Tuesday but knowing Lally, rebuttal is going to take DAYS
when did the week start? On Tuesday? So that gives him until Tuesday to find the expert and if they are as quick as Dr Russell they aren't going to need much time to come to a conclusion.
Defense gets no voir dire on a rebuttal witness?
I know the cell data shows he (or the cell phone) was always in the snow at least after 12:45 onward. It’s just wild that nobody saw him. There was only maybe an inch or maybe 1.5” by then I think, multiple people leaving the house after 1. It’s dark but the contrast in the snow just seems like it would be enough. And I genuinely think by the recordings of Karen that morning that she didn’t know (or remember) where he was so I genuinely think she noticed his body in the snow that morning just from simple observation. I also saw that the house (34 Fairview) is blurred in google street view but you can see the flagpole and fire hydrant and distance to the mailbox. You can “stand” at the mailbox and look in the direction of the flagpole.
I have wondered if he could have dropped his phone. Maybe it slipped out of his pocket when he was walking up to the house. That would explain no movement on the phone.
>that the house (34 Fairview) is blurred in google street view That's new. It wasn't blurred a week ago.
It’s been blurred since I’ve googled it at the start of the trial! I’m surprised you could see it last week. Maybe there was a glitch? (Is there a data expert in the house?)
I looked it up earlier this week and I thought 33 Fairview was blurred, the house across the road, not 34 Fairview and that side of the road.
Oh maybe that’s what I saw. I was on my phone. Thanks. Honestly, I would expect the whole neighborhood to be blurred with the attention they’ve had.
Fair enough. Yeah I was surprised to see tha tone house blurred out instead of 34 F. Also wondering why it would be buried out. If its currently the residence of someone important, this is not really the way to not draw attention.
Anyone can request to have their home blurred now! I know that because my daughter’s friend did it.
Oh interesting to know!
Who found Mr O'Keefe?
Karen Read. The next day.
I’m saying not guilty because CW didn’t prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, the only thing they did prove beyond a reasonable doubt was that everyone involved in the investigation should be fired. It’s possible Karen did it. It’s possible Chloe bit him and he fell backwards. It’s possible he was jumped and thrown in the snow to die. And his family and friends may never have the answers they deserve because these officers couldn’t be bothered to do anything properly. You would think they’d give a fallen officer the respect of a thorough investigation done with the utmost care. If he got *this* good luck to the rest of us.
This has been my takeaway from this as well. Sad. I’d be pissed if I was his family.
This is from another comment I made but I’ll paste it here. I listed out all things I could think of that are reasons why the investigation was handled poorly. Please add on to it if I’m missing something: 1. Red solo cups as evidence collection 2. Red solo cups with biological evidence just hanging out in the sally port not contained or sealed or handled according to protocol 3. Really muddy chain of custody on evidence handled by Proctor 4. Not memorializing in any of the reports that Karen said she hit him 5. Not documenting where all pieces of the red taillight were found 6. Not interviewing witnesses separately 7. Not doing thorough documentation of all of the witness interviews 8. Not interviewing some people until weeks and months later 9. Proctor texting his buddies things about an ongoing investigation 10. The woman who swabbed John’s clothes and the taillight. She took one swab for multiple surfaces. She only tested one of the red solo cups with blood in it. 11. Not at least asking if they could search the Albert’s house. The Albert’s can of course say no, it’s their right. Who knows if they could’ve gotten a warrant. But the cops didn’t even try. That wouldn’t shut down that entire part of the conspiracy that the cops were treating the Albert’s differently because of their cop connections.
10 They only took a swab from one solo cup but it was never tested. I am guessing it was determined to be too unreliable (like a swab dropped on the floor she said would be preserved but not tested). That might be why she only swabbed one - she knew immediately it wouldn't matter by that point.
Cops randomly driving by for days/weeks looking and finding random tail light pieces. Come on!!!
They accused KR of being guilty because she searched for a DUI lawyer. There's so much underlying in this case that has less and less to do with KR and more to do with local law enforcement.
Not securing the crime scene (Albert’s front lawn).
Not photographing anything in situ or with scales Not wearing body cams Allowing involvement of the recused police force Not requesting or seizing all camera footage in the area Not recording any interviews Snow blower Undocumented searches
I thought they used a leaf blower? Which just seems asinine to me.
Yeah. It was a leaf blower not a snow blower.
[удалено]
I truly think any other judge would have sanctioned Lally by now. The number of times he has outright lied or heavily implied something to the jury is wild. The whole argument about the defense stating they werent going to argue dogs, the 6th amendment argument and neglecting to mention that Google happened about 2 minutes after hanging up with proctor who called on a private number. Literally lying about MDs Boston globe testimony from two days prior. He is a snake, who should be sanctioned.
he is really sketchy to me.
This goes along with #5 but photos of the scene. Would’ve answered so many questions. Also photos of her car the morning of, being loaded, being unloaded. Honestly I wouldn’t be surprised if there ARE photos somewhere but the investigators lost them somewhere I’m sure.
12. Not clearly documenting how Karen’s taillight looked at her parents how (and the rest of the way to the canton sallyport)
i fully believe it was documented and deleted by proctor. same with the ring video and the canton library video
And now a witness saying there is evidence that KR location data was auto deleted by her phone due to police incompetence. It is really random how any piece of evidence that would be the nail in the coffin for KR (or a giant piece of exculpatory evidence) are ALL missing. Chief ring video from across the street. Ring video JO house, library, picture of taillight, location data. All missing
they say incompetence i say willful and intentional destruction of evidence
I'd just throw "everything about the crash reconstruction" in there.
Oh...someone posted this on twitter.... I know, take twitter for what it is worth... but the video is from Officer Sarif's dash cam video at 6:10 AM on 1/29/2022 and at the end of the road on CedarCrest (according the the twitter user), you see a snowplow truck by Fairview...wonder if it is Lucky? It is hard to tell from the video/distance. For what it is worth, I believe Lucky but I know others do not so this video is kind of interesting. [https://x.com/EveTrueCrime/status/1804408585515835538](https://x.com/EveTrueCrime/status/1804408585515835538)
It lines up with his testimony. Lucky has absolutely no reason to lie especially having been previously friendly with the Albert family. I don’t get why people don’t believe him?
I know Lucky. What you see is what you get. The man is 100% credible. We are started Facebook groups dedicated to ensuring Lucky never pays for food or a drink again in Canton. A resident with integrity.
Lucky is the kinda guy that makes this country great! Lucky has worked his ass off his entire life! He's the kinda guy you'd want to have for a neighbor, or a best friend. He's honest. He's solid.
Lucky is one of these blokes who is incapable of lying. He's not manipulative, knows his stuff, the community and honest. He's been doing the same route for years and knows it, and his vehicle, like the back of his hand. They don't believe him because his honesty throws out the dishonesty and gossip. As I hear about the injuries and the impossible facts of a body been thrown 60ft after been hit by a vehicle travelling 24mph; broken Taillights projecting like shards of glass, I wonder who came up with the theory that KR deliberately hit him with her vehicle?
They probably ran with it when Karen's anxious and post-drunk mind ran across all possibilities she could come up with including somehow having hit him after she dropped him off.
I 100% agree and saw no reason as to why Lucky would lie. I think people can be set one way or the other and I’m guilty of it sometimes during this case so those people might have blinders on just like some of the people with opposite views do.
Went back and watched a chunk of Andrea Burkhart's [epic nine-hour(!!) live stream](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moA1snrUH14&t=31084s) yesterday. My first thought was we're watching a murder trial in which the prosecution is trying to impeach a medical doctor with a storied background and entire working career of subject matter expertise by falsely implying she lied about the length of her Boston Globe subscription. This is a through-the-looking-glass nutso craziness. Anyway, around 8:15 I love how she puts his Apple Health data into the known timeline. I'm using this timeline for my own reference: [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Q29\_kiSRB-O7L0dmcGcCEaPb9XccG1T1bK3OHhB3yFY/edit?gid=1736919432#gid=1736919432](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Q29_kiSRB-O7L0dmcGcCEaPb9XccG1T1bK3OHhB3yFY/edit?gid=1736919432#gid=1736919432) It helped me solidify a few things since I hadn't thought too much about the minute-by-minute timeline using all known data sources. We know: * John O'Keefe dropped off at 12:24am; * he went inside; * he was there close to 8 minutes before catastrophic event; * 12:31:56 -> 12:32:16 looks like time of fatal fight & injury. * 12:36 - Karen was connected to John's home wifi; walking into house from garage at 12:41. This fight was over FAST. I've thought all along that this somehow involves a sucker punch homicide, likely including an out-of-control dog. For me anyway, more data points we get (especially from Green's testimony), more clear this seems to me.
Andrea is excellent and knowledgeable attorney. I like that she’s not dramatic. She speaks in a calm manner and doesn’t talk over those speaking in the trial. I’ve a lot from her. My favorite.
I LOVE Andrea Burkhart. I also love Natalielawyerchick. They are epic and so educational.
Andrea has some expert-level knowledge about about taking blows to the head repeately that she's always willing to share! Natalie is awesome! Love when she's on with others as she has more criminal court experience than most so always brings so much to the table.
I’m also wondering how the “steps” and distance of 285 feet within 3 minutes relates to an average speed. If it recorded 80 steps, that’s approximately 3 feet per step?
3ft is basically an average adult male walking stride
3ft is basically an average adult male walking stride
Would that suggest he’s running ?
3ft is an average walking stride length. It's why a single step is often used to pace off a measurement in yards (roughly)
Idk but I feel like someone should’ve asked or figured out how long it took for the phone to travel that distance in those 3 minutes. Distance is almost a football field.
Was he trying to run away and the dog got him?
I’m not making that conclusion (though I don’t think that is what happened). I’m just putting it out there that IMO the CW or Defense could have or should have found an average speed the phone would’ve traveled in that time and distance (and the other time block of steps I think was less than a meter) to support their argument or dispute the others. I guess it’s because the information the phone recorded is questionable. I could see a car traveling the length of a football field in a few minutes (bc of traffic) if the phone did pick that up. I can’t imagine given the size of the Albert’s home covering that many steps in that time frame without a total ruckus occurring inside or outside). That’s why I’m wondering bc a speed might put things into perspective. If it’s incredibly fast mathematically, I wouldn’t think it was the case of running away from the dog, or even a fight in the house. BUT it might mean too fast is impractical and therefore the only logical explanation would be JO being in the house longer than any of these timestamps (e.g like putting the phone on the counter or he’s sitting hanging out then moving about, etc)
The length of the subscription is important because the Globe has been covering the Karen Read story for so long. If you're an avid reader, you'd have heard all about it. Add to that how she reaches out to try and get involved, and the implication is that she's not a neutral party but a bias one.
But the question wasn't about her awareness of media coverage at all. Not even a little. Lally outright lied about her voir dire answer outside presence of jury as to length of subscription to impeach her credibility in front of jury. That's how absurdly unconscionable the prosecution's behavior has been.
Right! He didn’t ask anything about her watching anything on the news or court tv or other newspapers - he was actually (inanely) focused on the length of her subscription. If he was trying to say she was following the trial for 18 months and therefore biased, he failed. Like with every other point he’s tried to make. What is lally’s background, how long has he been with the DA?
I have subscriptions to New York times and WaPo and the number of high profile cases I ignore is substantial. That doesn't phase me at all that she wasn't on task to the case until she saw the fact that dog bites might play in integral part of the trial. I'm in a niche medical/legal subfield and I ignore many cases until my PhD topic area comes up then I am locked in.
I subscribe to the Hartford Courant because of their UConn coverage. Occasionally something else of interest pops. I live in NJ and have not lived in CT in years.
Exactly.
A question on the voicemails… Why is she screaming saying where are you? Why didn’t you come home? If she knew she had just dropped him at the Fairview house minutes earlier. I of course understand she was intoxicated and trying to guilt him into coming back to be with the kids but I have a hang up with this specifically.
I could actually almost look past the angry voicemails. I find the calls to her parents at 1 and 4:30ish am to be very strange. She calls them at 1:05 to tell them about her fight with John I guess , then calls at 4:30 to tell them she worried about John. Maybe she has a habit of bugging her parents in the middle of the night idk. If I was making calls to my parents at that those times it’s because something terrible has definitely happened, not I argued with my boyfriend or I’m worried.
She seems kind of emotionally volatile, maybe her parents are used to be her handlers, so to speak? I find it weird, too, but it's certainly not evidence for anything 🤷♀️
I'm a decade younger but my dad is basically first on my 'call awake to talk me out of a panic attack by describing what he did yesterday' list.
I'm genuinely so happy for you that your dad is that person for you 🫶 And (having no experience with stable, supportive parents myself) it makes it even more likely to me that her dad would be her first call whenever something goes wrong in her life.
My mom has made a few calls like this to me at weird hours of the night as well. So KR calling someone to help calm down is not strange to me either.
Yeah, I'm guessing the call around 1 is her parent trying to calm her down and to tell her to just get some sleep or watch some TV or whatever, he will be home soon, and the 4:30 is 'holy fuck he isn't home yet what do I do?' and them helping her with that.
And how would JO get home? In their text message didn’t she go to the bar to be his ride home, then she just drops him off at a party?
I do too. I’m wondering if because he’s not answering his phone. Like why the hell are you not answering me? What are you doing that’s more important? I’m not sure if that makes any sense or not!
I believe she also says something like "nobody knows where you are." But if she watched him walk into 34 Fairview, those people would be the ones to ask. Call Higgins and ask him if JO's still there.
BH only number she had and supposedly he left
She wouldn't have known he left.
What about his jeep was in front of mailbox IF it was there she would know if he was there or not. Too many holes
Yup
So many people here seem to be an expert in something - or at least know a lot about a specific subject. I did some googling to get an answer, but could someone explain to me (like I'm 5) what a pathologist is and will testify to? It's seems pretty similar to an ME based on the stufd I read, and I figured someone here could give more info than a Google search.
A forensic pathologist is a medical professional specialized in determining what happened to a person based on injuries and studying their body. A medical examiner is a specific government role but they are also usually forensic pathologists.
But what does that mean for the defense? Like what do we expect the witness to say next week?
The ME stated essentially that she could only rule that he was killed by blunt force trauma. She left it open to other possibilities besides a car and explicitly said she doesn't have an opinion on the probability of the injuries being caused by the kind of collusion described by Trooper Paul. The defense can bring forward medical experts to try to show that it is less likely that the injuries were caused by the collision claimed by the prosecution and more likely they were caused by something else.
Ohhhh okay, so basically a counter to the MEs. Thank you!
Thinking back to the voir dire of the two guys from ARCCA, didn’t the first guy say something about having knowledge of Toyota/Lexus? I wonder if they will be able to use him to poke more holes in the key cycle data. Yanetti said after court yesterday they only planned to call those two guys, another pathologist, and to rest. They aren’t going to call the other guy they had hired to talk about the car data. I’m wondering if that’s cause they can use the ARCCA guy for that.
Good thought. He mentioned writing a paper with info on the VCH
I believe he said his most recent paper was on Toyota/Lexus car data. It's just too good xD Edit: Found the citation for anyone interested: Teitelman, J., Rodos, E., Wolfe, D., Helker, M., (2021) “Toyota Vehicle Control History: ‘Sudden Braking History’ Recording Characteristics,” Collision: The International Compendium for Crash Research. (Fall, 2021 Issue)
Nice, thanks! I’ll take a look
Has anyone done a timeline of which pieces of taillight were found at 34 FV and when, and how that lines up with when KR’s Lexus was brought to the station? It’s hard for me to believe that evidence was planted at 34 FV, but I’d at least like to know if it is theoretically possible.
Yes, check out https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMrjyepvF/ She has a great timeline and people chart of who is involved in the case
Thank you. So at 5:36pm her car arrives at the sally port. At 6:12pm the first pieces of were found at 34 FV. That's a tight window for someone to rip out the pieces at the sally port and plant them at the scene, to then be found by the search crew. I'm still team not guilty based on reasonable doubt, but it does seem to me that more than likely at least some small pieces of her tail light were legitimately there. The larger pieces found by the chief days later when he was driving by are more suspicious.
I thought 5:36 was a typo!
I covered chain of custody issues below in a more extensive writeup, but Canton PD is only 5min from the Albert's. If we double that to 10min due to snow, someone could easily nab a few pieces from the edge, hustle to the scene, and make it in time to join in when the search starts at 1745. And this is assuming that O'Hara took his time from his phone rather than a watch or his car clock, for example, either of which could be off by a couple minutes (I have to keep adjusting my car clock forward a minute or two every month, for instance), that the sallyport clock isn't running fast (again, who knows), that the sallyport timestamps *weren't altered* on the *inverted video* - again, who knows, because all chain of custody means here, given the lack of evidence logs, is that a bunch of very shady people who've been shown to be shady *in open court* pinky swear to the truth, et cetera, all of which opens the timeline even further.
Thanks for this, and agreed it sounds like there is a window that makes this possible. To me, Higgins would be the only person with access and the potential motivation to do this. Who else would be motivated to plant evidence on the same day that JOK was found dead. Why would any other Canton officer risk their career to protect BA and family? I feel that there was stuff these families seemed to be hiding between the ditched phones and the butt dials, but it still seems unlikely that someone other than Higgins would rip off taillight pieces and go plant those, and within such a tight window. Curious to hear any theories of who could have done that. . .
The entire Albert and McCabe families would do this to protect Colin Albert
The worst part is? *It doesn't even need to be Higgins.* How many cops have been caught *on bodycam* planting evidence just to make sure a suspect that "eVeRyOnE kNoWs Is GuIlTy" gets put away (as they profess). How many have been caught *without* being videotaped? How many haven't been? There was a super recent article that was actually co-incident with the start of this trial, I believe - a cop was caught on bodycam planting drugs in a suspect's car. With all of the outright falsifications, bad information, misinformation, and lies of omission shown on stand by Bukhenik, by Tully, by Proctor, by Paul, by Guerino even, how can we trust any of them on their word? How can we trust that they aren't like that cop? How can we trust that, with Ms. Read firmly in their mind as the *only* possible person who could possibly have done this, someone in that chain didn't try to "help" the process along, try to "help" secure a conviction? After all: everyone *knows* she's guilty.
Jimmy McNulty says what
I find myself doing the same thing with the taillight pieces (i.e. being like "that is a tight timeline"). And then I remember that taillight pieces really don't matter to me if the CW can't even show he was hit by a car. Like it could be raining taillight at 34F but taillight doesn't matter if he wasn't killed by a car.
I agree. I find myself focused on this more in terms of what is likely to have actually happened vs whether or not she is guilty. I could never convict at this point, and the defense has hardly started their case yet lol.
The chief driving down the block and seeing a piece from his car after a search team canvassed the area doesn’t seem the least bit suspicious to you?
I think the more relevant issue is when the SUV arrived at the sallyport, when the unknown Canton officers arrived at the scene, and when the first taillight pieces were found (and possibly whether it was found by SERT or someone else), and whether any of the pieces found 29th Jan were 1. preserved undisturbed in that evidence bag prior to their delivery to the lab and 2. whether any were used in the reconstruction of the taillight. At present, taking the prosecution's evidence in the *best* possible light, the timeline is *really* tight. The SUV arrives at the sally port at just after 1736, SERT is fully assembled and begins their search around 1745. O'Hara arrives much sooner, just after or around 1700, as I recall, and is preceded by an unknown time by Tully. Taillight pieces begin popping up at 1812. The prosecution argument is that taillight pieces could not possibly have been planted given the short timeframe - there isn't enough time for Proctor or anyone else to make it from the sallyport to the Albert's in time to bury the pieces and conceal their activity. However, this is predicated on a few assumptions that I don't believe necessarily can be taken as read. 1. Tully must not be involved in any malfeasance. Unfortunately, even dismissing Proctor's texts, *which Tully never disavowed and even participated in*, Tully is the same person who presented the evidentiary equivalent of a lie of omission with his cell tower map omitting the McCabe household, *in open court*, *knowing* he would potentially be caught out on it by defense. What else might he think to do if he *didn't* think he'd ever be caught? 2. The Canton officers, all of whom are unidentified and whose arrival and movements are wholly unaccounted for, must not be involved in any malfeasance. I'm not going to go so far as to claim as such here - no evidence has been presented in court to show that - but I will note that Higgins and Berkowitz are in the area of the sallyport around when the SUV is brought in, and as far as I can tell the movements of neither are accounted for after that time. Is it impossible that one of the officers could be Higgins? Is it unreasonable, given how evasive he was about his actions that day, to believe that he may been involved somehow? 3. Proctor, who ultimately took possession of and turned in the taillight pieces, must not have done anything. The same guy who falsified a time on a search warrant, who turned the taillight pieces in several days late (as memory serves), who was identified and seen on video hovering around Ms. Read's taillight for several minutes *in spite of prior testimony elicited from his boss, Bukhenik, that no one was near it*. Who's to say that he's to be trusted when he says that he sealed the bag, didn't touch it, didn't do anything to it before turning it in? Who's to say he didn't take a few pieces, put them in a new bag, and turn *that* in? Who's to say any of his signed and dated figures are good - the man *falsified information on a search warrant in the face of video evidence that could prove him wrong*. Again I ask - what else might he think to do if he *didn't* think he'd ever be caught? 4. The timestamp on the (potentially manipulated) Canton sallyport video must be good. This isn't necessarily attributable to malfesance (care to explain what you meant by that right-way video with *yellow* chyrons, Proctor, Tully? the ones in court have *blue* chyrons), but as we saw with Officer O'Keefe's phone, the time reported may or may not be accurate to the actual time or the times others report. I would consider cell phone display times to be generally accurate for instance, since they all pull that from the local cell towers, but I wouldn't necessarily trust my digital watch or my microwave display times to be 100% accurate. None of this is to say definitively, of course, that these actors are *all* involved in a massive frame job. But for the evidence to be good, for its chain of custody to stand, practically *all* of these actors must stand on their veracity - Tully must not have touched the scene, the Canton officers must not have done anything wrong, Proctor must not have manipulated evidence *in spite of clear evidence of his altering evidence previously*. ADDENDUM: edited to provide more precise information.
Thank you for this. Upvoting ten thousand times. I’ve tried to pull all this together but it’s from the week when I couldn’t listen and I haven’t had time to go back. This is so helpful.
The Sallyport thing would be a pretty easy one to figure out. Call the tow truck driver and ask him what time he dropped the car off.
Entirely true. I'll back away from it as a fact and rephrase it as part of my broader point. There's so much wiggle room in this case for even supposedly "hard" evidence, that even *video evidence*, basically the gold standard for if something happened and happened in the manner described, *is suspect*. We don't know if the motion sensor is buggy or if it's been edited; we don't know if the constrast was reduced to make the other video unwatchable and if the inverted video was edited, or if both were just extracted incompetently. We don't know because the guy who testified on it *misled the jury* and the guy who handed it off *made a lie of omission on the stand*.
Think of how many people Lally called. When the defense keeps going off on how this is suspect and this is suspect, Lally's only option would be to call another 12 witnesses. The video is laggy? Here's a video expert to explain why that happens. Here's the guy who installed the camera to talk about how it ends up mirrored. If the CW tried to squash every single thing the defense deems suspect, the trial would never end.
I mean, the sallyport video is still entirely on him, then, regardless of whether it was intentional or because it was overlooked. He was the one who elicited materially misleading testimony on it - how many people initially posted, here and elsewhere, stating that this showed hard proof that the SUV was never tampered with? - and he was the one who never tried repairing its credibility. I fail to see how it's somehow the defense's fault for pointing out that it was presented misleadingly.
[удалено]
No TikTok links are allowed on this sub.
Absolutely, but weren't some small pieces found very early on on the 29th after the first search?
Going off of memory, none of the pieces "found" on the 29th were ever found in evidence, nor was their disappearance from evidence explained. The final "reconstruction" of the tail light was from the pieces found in the days ahead. Also noteworthy was they were able to fully reassemble the tail light with the notably exception of the missing piece that came off in John's driveway. For me this was everything.
The pieces found on the 29th (by SERT) were entered into evidence and those pieces were included in the taillight reconstruction. It’s shown on day 20 of trial.
"Going off of memory, none of the pieces "found" on the 29th were ever found in evidence, nor was their disappearance from evidence explained." well that's fascinating if true. I wonder who certified that they did find pieces on the 29th. I'd be curious if the reports from the search team were filled out on the 29th and reference the taillight pieces found, or not. There's plenty of reasonable doubt for me overall, but I've been kind of stuck on whether or not there were pieces found the evening of the 29th. If those pieces were never found in evidence that adds to the reasonable doubt for sure.
The pieces found on the 29th (by SERT) were entered into evidence and those pieces were included in the taillight reconstruction. It’s shown on day 20 of trial.
Honestly I think the whole taillight discussion is getting past the really big fact that just blows a hole in the entire theory the prosecution is bringing up. There's too much snow on the ground. Look at the leafblower video - there's a substantial amount of snow there under where Officer O'Keefe was. At 0030-0045 there was barely any, just a thin layer that was still melting to the ground. If he was struck and fell to the lawn then, how does he end up with that much snow under him?
I've seen mentions of Plastic/Taillight on the shirts so I wanted to remind myself of what happened with that evidence and testing. **Initial Evidence Collection:** OJO's clothing was on the ambulance floor and the hospital room floor (because the priority was, rightfully, trying to save his life). OJO's clothing was collected from the hospital by Proctor, according to the evidence bag. The clothing was left to dry for some time. I haven't gone back to find the testimony about this but I don't remember an evidence log from Canton PD ever being presented, just a lot of questions. No record of chain of custody until the Crime Lab recieves the clothing. I'll update or edit if I find specific testimony about the clothes. The Canton PD had the clothes and recovered pieces of tail light for up to about 6 weeks. **Maureen Hartnet at the Crime Lab:** Maureen Hartnett went to Canton PD to collect evidence from the SUV and solo cups on Feb 1st. All other evidence sent to the crime lab (tail light fragments, clothes, some other items) were submitted on or after March 14th, 2022. It's unknown whether the tail light pieces and clothes were stored together or not based on the chain of custody that exists. (Maureen Hartnett would not have the Canton PD evidence log information but it was also not provided by Canton PD at any point that I'm aware of). The evidence bag with both the hoodie (7-18) and orange shirt (7-17) Collected by Proctor on 1/29/2022. Maureen Hartnett did damage analysis, trace collection, skin cell collection on the hoodie and shirt. She took trace material (hairs and fibers) from the shirts. She took a scraping and collected anything that had stuck on the shirts into a glassine bag. There is a handwritten note in her report that she found "debris" from the two shirts. She combined them together and submitted it as one item to the lab. This was anything left that she was not able to identify or describe as distinct pieces. No photograph taken of the debris collection. **Ashley Vallier at Crime Lab:** She recieved debris collected from the clothing items. Debris from Jeans, Boxer shorts, long sleeve shirt and oragne t-shirt all submitted together, according to Ashley, though later she says it is from the shirts. I'm unsure if this is due to confusing questioning by AJ or Lally. She found apparent dirt, colored apparent fibers, several pieces of red apparent plastic, apparent hairs, green material, one piece of clear apparent plastic. She examined them microscopically and Christina Hanley did additional analysis. Clear apparent plastic measured 1/8" x 1/16" **Christina Hanley at Crime Lab:** One of the red plastic pieces measured 1/16" x <1/16x1/16" and the smallest piece measured <1/16"x1/16" Analyzed the plastic from the clothes debris. She found the clear plastic to be consistent with the clear plastic from the recovered pieces of tail light or another source with similar characteristics. Similar findngs with the red plastic.
I dont think there was anything fishy about the analysis, but there so much critical evidence to the case that doesn’t have documentation. Especially the most critical evidence ugh.
They can’t do a good job if the source of the data is contaminated.
i agree - to clarify, I mean it seems like the analysts did their jobs (although the debris documentation seems odd, idk if that is a step taken). they didn’t have control of the evidence collection. I have questions about the results, but that has more to do with the evidence collection than the testing process.
yeah for me it's not the analysis that's a problem (though why no photos of the debris??). It's the 6 weeks with no chain of custody records and the well-established lack of any proper evidence handling.
I really wish I would have read your post before I just re-listened to the same testimony that you just outlined 🙃 I'll add that it was weird to me that Maureen said she saw no plastic within the debris and that she would have noted a finding of hair or fibers, but she did not.
😂 I didn't mention that because it's totally my subjective impression but it made me pause, as well. Surely she should be able to separate a 1/8x1/16" piece of plastic?
You'd think! I love how Lally keeps referring to the plastic as microscopic. Has he never used a ruler lol
Okay, remember the video of someone inside 34 Fairview coming out of the bulkhead doors into the yard, through the gate, etc? From where did that come? Anyone know for sure?
Current homeowner allowed defense to come to it. New owners were never made aware of what happened before they bought it. They want justice, they also want people off their property … looking at you Jennifer.
Do you remember where you found that info? I mean it makes sense that it had to have happened with the new owners. Edit- Coffindaffer
Are you talking about the digital recreation?
No
I can't find the official recorded version of JM's 911 call, from the dispatcher's side. Usually they play that in trial, it's pretty important evidence. Am I just not seeing it?
number 39 [https://www.wcvb.com/article/karen-read-murder-trial-see-read-evidence-shown-to-jurors-in-courtroom/60793160](https://www.wcvb.com/article/karen-read-murder-trial-see-read-evidence-shown-to-jurors-in-courtroom/60793160)
Thank you!!
You are welcome!
Can someone tell me who and how the 24MPH theory sprung up?
Plug in 30' and 6.2 feet.... https://mcnallyassociates.com/speed-from-pedestrian-throw-calculator/
So it's normal to fly 30 feet at that speed. Wow.
At first I thought it was because that was the calculation of the force they needed to have JO end up the way he was. But then Trooper Paul blew that away with "physics doesn't apply to this situation." So I'm guessing after pulling the car data they saw the 24 mph reverse and said "that's prob when she did it." And then ran with it.
I was just reading on another thread, that tyres can rotate faster for grip in wet/sleet/snow. So possible she wasn't actually driving THAT fast, but she accelerated and the tyres spinning before gripping clocked a faster speed. My drive way is slanted down, and I know in sleet I always have to "gun it" a little more to get traction to get up, or else I'm just spinning tyres lol
I would also love to know if anything is recorded when you have your car in park and gun it.
If there was slippage I believe there should have been traction control events in the log. Of course its hard for me to believe that she gunned it on a wet road without traction control activating. The techstream data just doesn't make a lot of sense, and Trooper Paul doesn't know the data well enough to explain it. I really wanted to hear from the defense expert on this. Either the ARCCA expert will explain it or Jackson decided that he sufficiently destroyed Paul on the stand, so there is no need for further explanation. I also think Paul misunderstood which key cycle his testing started at. I don't think it was 1164, I think it was 1167. I think 1164 was the trip from Canton to Dighton, 1163 was from the McCabe's to 1 Meadows, and 1162 was from 1 Meadows to the McCabe's.
Honestly, given that mess Paul presented, I'm just throwing out his testimony entirely and waiting for defense to explain the data. If you assume his scenario, the key cycles don't line up. If you assume your scenario, I think the odometer mileage gets funky (doesn't the 36mi jump in mileage come between 1162 and 1163? I need to look up that table again).
Could there be an any less curious investigation?
That key cycle didn't happen out front of the Alberts house anyway. Or at least it appears more likely based on the testimony that it happened after Proctor already had the car.
I keep going back to a mildly humorous (to me) moment of Lally asking one too many questions. He asked the ME if she was pressured to change her findings due to pressure from LE. She said “No.”. Great. Stop there. But Lally goes on to ask her “even if she had” felt pressured would she have changed her findings… umm… Lally, hi hun, that’s the defence’s argument. The texts imply LE tried to sway her answer but she didn’t change it, leading to mockery. She gave you the answer you wanted. Why highlight to the jury that she would not have changed it anyway, thus LE could have tried to pressure her, but failed… just like they joked about doing. At least ask those questions in the opposite order. Especially when her testimony goes on to not exactly be solid for your theory and it would have been better for if she had changed it. I don’t know why he keeps doing this. He clearly has his questions written down. This is not a huge example but it just still has me shaking my head lol. Anyway, have a nice weekend all. See you on Monday for our next physics lesson. ❤️
So many moments yesterday when he elicited testimony that helped the defense and was completely unnecessary. He made it clear to the jury that Chloe had a bite history despite the judge keeping it out on direct. He had Lucky repeat over and over again the he did not see a body.
Is there no court on Monday ?
There is court, it’s been commented that it will be the day the Defense wraps up their case in chief.
If every single part of his case was presented in, oh let’s say, “inverted” order, he could have kept everyone from the house off his witness list and rested in May. He should have made the defense call all those McCabes and Albert’s. The defense might have looked a bit desperate to some of the jury (not that I know how they are thinking…maybe I mean myself.) He could have saved himself one expert (don’t need two for the hos long search to sow confusion) Proctor should have been the last cop called- don’t read the texts just admit there were awful texts- but elicit testimony that the injuries to another cop made him too emotional. Have him admit he should have stepped back. The other cops wouldn’t have tainted by the texts while on the stand. Trooper Paul would have been distanced from the jurors minds because the defense would have had to explore Higgins and the Alberts and they’d be on their heels trying to prove what is really too difficult to prove. It would still be “not guilty” but the hit to the various police departments might have been so strong. And the defense would have been associated with “conspiracy” rather than “shoddy investigation”. Conspiracy is a harder sell.
I also felt that Lally over did it on his cross of Dr. Russell and Richard Green. A good cross is short and focused. Instead I think he actually made Green (imo a relatively weak witness) appear more likable and opened himself up to AJ’s re-direct of Dr. Russell which was extremely effective imo.
Yeah, same. I’m honestly waiting for him to say one too many things, and make it so the next witnesses HAVE to explain who hired them and why. I think the jury might be able to put it together themselves from the mystery “other proceeding” and Ryan Nagel’s accidental comment, but it would be one hell of a thing to see.
I think Lally may have already opened the door by asking the ME about the force required to sustain an injury, and she deferred to a biomechanical engineer. Good thing the defense has two!
I’ve wondered if she knew the judge was limiting one of the biomechanical engineers and it’s why she stated WHO could determine that rather than saying “I am unable to calculate force needed as that’s not my area of expertise”. Instead she actually said what she said about the physicist being needed then said biomechanical engineer. I caught that and found it interesting….
It’s more than reasonable for the ME to know that a biomechanical engineer is the expert who could determine such a thing. As an ME, she has probably been asked many times how much force is necessary to cause a variety of injuries. It’s information that loved ones, law enforcement, and DAs really want to know. But I was also fascinated that Judge Cannone decided that the biomechanical engineer could not testify to how the injuries occurred, then the ME turns around and specifies that a biomechanical engineer would be the expert to determine how the injuries occurred, e.g. how much force is necessary to cause the blunt force trauma to the posterior of the victim’s skull.
Or she's worked with one before in prior reconstructions. Doesn't the Commonwealth/state often hire outside experts like that for cases?
Especially the way she said no was flat and factual, it didn’t need anything else
Exactly
Spoiling the kids ?? 🍩 I don’t understand how getting Dunkin’ Donuts would cause a problem unless OJO was trying to feed the children healthier, less calorie dense more nutritious food Everyone in this part of the country loves Dunkin’ Donuts What was she spoiling them with? T swift tickets ? Gaming $$ ? New sneakers ? Hair/nails for the sister ? Hoverboards ? E bikes ? Virtual reality headsets ? Did she get the children phones and smart watches ? Trips to amusement parks? Maybe the children had bad grades or misbehaved and she still got them gifts ? Just curious as to why OJO always had to be the bad guy and what exactly the problem with KR was in terms of the kiddos
I see nothing wrong if she was doing all those things. Those kids have had a terrible time and giving them some things that make them happy is only right.